1 Trials in the Late Roman Republic, 149 BC to 50 BC Records of criminal and civil trials offer scholars a wealth of information about legal practices and principles, social history, and the conventions of rhetoric. For Roman historians court records as we know them today do not exist. To fill that gap Michael C. Alexander has tabulated, as exhaustively as possible, the scattered information available about the 391 known trials, criminal and civil, dating from the last century of the Roman Republic (149 BC to 50 BC). For each case Alexander provides as many pieces of legal data as are available, including wherever possible the date of the trial, the charge, the verdict, and the names of all involved: defendant, defense speaker, prosecutor or plaintiff, presiding magistrate, jurors, and witnesses. The entry for each trial also contains citations of relevant ancient sources and modern scholarship. Footnotes make the reader aware of any dubious or controversial points which relate to the formal aspects of the trial. Also included are a general index of names, plus separate indexes by role, and an index of procedures. For Roman historians and scholars in the fields of Roman law and Latin rhetoric, this volume is an invaluable reference work for the study of the judicial system of ancient Rome in the last one hundred years of the Republic. MICHAEL c. ALEXANDER is in the Department of Classics, University of Illinois at Chicago.
2 PHOENIX Journal of the Classical Association of Canada Revue de la Société canadienne des études classiques Supplementary Volume xxvi Tome supplémentaire xxvi
3 MICHAEL C. ALEXANDER Trials in the Late Roman Republic, 149 BC to 50 BC UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS Toronto Buffalo London
4 University of Toronto Press 1990 Toronto Buffalo London Printed in Canada ISBN X Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Alexander, Michael Charles, Trials in the late Roman Republic, 149 BC to 50 BC (Phoenix. Supplementary volume; 26 = Phoenix. Tome suppleméntaire, ISSN ; 26) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN X 1. Trials-Rome. 2. Justice, Administration of (Roman law). 3. Rome - History - Republic, B.C. I. Title. II. Series: Phoenix. Supplementary volume (Toronto, Ont); 26. KJA2700.A '07 C This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Campus Research Board of the University of Illinois at Chicago.
5 CONTENTS Acknowledgments vii Introduction ix Abbreviations xvii THE TRIALS 3 Works Cited 183 Indexes 199 Index of Procedures 201 General Index of Names 204 Index of Defendants 215 Index of Advocates 220 Index of Prosecutors and Plaintiffs 222 Index of Magistrates 226 Index of Jurors 228 Index of Witnesses 230 Index of Parties 233
7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is a pleasure to acknowledge the support, financial and other, which I have received from various sources in working on this project. In 1981 I received a grant from the American Philosophical Society to complete research on this book, and in 1988 a publication subvention from the Campus Research Board of the University of Illinois at Chicago. I also worked on the book while holding a Fellowship for College Teachers, awarded by the National Endowment for the Humanities, in , when I was a Fellow at the National Humanities Center, and while a Fellow at the Institute for the Humanities at the University of Illinois at Chicago in I received computer facilities and/or assistance from the Center for Research in Law and Justice at UIC, the Department of Classics at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, the UNC Social Science Statistical Laboratory in the Institute for Research in Social Science, the UIC Computer Center, and especially from Tajudeen Sokoya, UIC Publications Services, who helped me in preparing camera-ready copy. Joan A. Bulger, editor at the University of Toronto Press, has patiently shepherded the manuscript through the publication process, and Kathy Gaca has improved the manuscript through her copy-editing. I would also like to thank my colleague John T. Ramsey for the suggestions and corrections he has made on sections of the manuscript which he has had occasion to look at in detail. Any errors and omissions which remain are, of course, my responsibility. Finally, I wish to acknowledge my debt to the late Professor G.V. Sumner of the University of Toronto, to whose memory this book is dedicated. My dissertation, written under his supervision, contains an appendix covering trials from the years 81 to 50 BC. As I have worked on this project in the years following, I have realized how much I owe to him.
9 INTRODUCTION In this work I have attempted to tabulate, as exhaustively as possible, the known legal facts pertaining to the 391 trials and possible trials, criminal and civil, which date from the last century of the Roman Republic, and about which some information has survived. The purpose of this work is to convey the sort of information which we might expect to find in court records, although, of course, it is not in reality such a documentary source, and should not be treated as one. I hope that this designedly austere recitation of the facts which we know about the Late Republic will prove to be of use to scholars working in Roman political history, legal history, and rhetoric. The model which I have followed, mutatis mutandis, is Broughton's Magistrates of the Roman Republic. Like MRR, this work takes a general body of previously known information and, by compressing it into a standardized format, seeks to make it easier for other scholars to use. Whether this work accomplishes that goal as successfully as Broughton's has done, and whether the subject matter here is of as encompassing an interest and importance as that which MRR covers, are different questions entirely. But if this book provides to some extent the kind of help which MRR has provided to scholars, I will be well satisfied. The following types of data are recorded for each trial when it is available, although in virtually all cases some of these categories are not represented because of a lack of information: 1 date 2 charge or claim: procedure (offense[s]) 3 defendant 4 advocate(s): speaker(s) for the defendant and/or the plaintiff (includes procurator and cognitor) 5 prosecutor(s) or plaintiff(s)
10 x Introduction 6 presiding magistrate (includes praetor, urban praetor, peregrine praetor, aedile, iudex quaestionis, quaesitor, and duumvir perduellionis) 7 jurors (includes advisory council and arbiter) 8 witnesses (includes informer, character witness, advocatus, laudator, supplicator, and delator) 9 party (parties) to a civil suit, where it is not known who is the defendant and who the plaintiff 10 other individuals directly involved in the trial, or miscellaneous information (see below) 11 verdict Wherever one or more of these items is absent, the implication is that information on that item (or those items) is not available. In the text, individuals are listed by praenomen, nomen, and cognomen, and by the identifying number from the Real-Encyclopädie., e.g., M. Tullius Cicero (29). (In the indexes, to allow computer-driven alphabetization, the order nomen, praenomen, and cognomen is used, e.g., Tullius , M. Cicero.) In the case of senators, I have followed the standard practice of listing the year in which they held the consulate (and also the year they held the censorship, if that office was reached). If a senator did not reach the consulate, I list the highest political office that senator attained. This information helps identify the individual, and also, because of the nature of the Roman political system, provides the reader with some idea of the political stature of any senator at the time of the trial. In addition, any office relevant to the trial, or held during the year of the trial, is listed. The date when an office was held is given, unless the office was held during the year of the trial. Equites Romani are also identified as such. For Italians the city of origin is listed. After this information the reader will find citations of ancient sources, first the directly relevant sources, and second (following the suggestion 'see also'), sources which provide indirectly relevant material. In some cases further bibliographic references are then given to scholarly works not mentioned in the footnotes, and finally, in most cases, there are footnotes on difficult and disputed details. Following the text there is a bibliography of works cited, and indexes of all individuals and legal procedures. Trials which took place outside Rome (such as before a provincial governor) and trials falling under military or religious jurisdictions are not included. I have made an exception for the three trials of the Vestals apud pontifices (cases #38, #39, and #40), since
11 xi Introduction they provide necessary background for the following four trials (cases #41, #42, #43, and #44). I have also included case #167, also apud pontifices, as possibly relevant background to case #236, and the two companion cases to #167, cases #168 and #169. As much as possible, I have used English words to designate the roles which the participants have in the trials (defendant, prosecutor, etc.). However, there may be many readers, especially those whose first language is not English, who will feel more at home with the Latin terms which these English words approximate, and so I include a list of the translations which I have chosen: advisory council: concilium advocate: patronus character witness: advocatus defendant: reus informer: index juror: iudex legate: legatus plaintiff: petitor prosecutor: accusator witness: testis I have not translated the following Latin terms: arbiter, cognitor, duumvir perduellionis, laudator, procurator,quaesitor, and triumvir capitalis. The term 'party' has been used when we know that an individual was involved in a trial, criminal or civil, either as a plaintiff or prosecutor, or as a defendant, but we do not know which of those roles he played. The rubrics of 'charge' (for criminal matters) and 'claim' (for civil matters) call for special comment. I have divided this material into two sections, first the procedural aspect of the case, and then (inside parentheses) the substantive aspect of the case. For criminal cases, the procedural aspect is usually defined by the statute under which the trial was held. Thus, for example, the entry 'charge: lex Acilia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Macedonia 115)' should be understood to mean 'charge was laid against the defendant under the provisions of the lex Acilia de repetundis, for alleged misconduct as governor of Macedonia in 115 BC If there is reason to believe that a legal sanction against a certain type of crime existed, but we do not know the name of its specific statute, the procedural aspect is listed generically, e.g., ambitus. Thus, the entry 'charge: ambitus (campaign for consulate of 115)' should be understood to mean 'charge was laid against the defendant under some provision against ambitus, for alleged viola-
12 xii Introduction tions committed in a campaign for the consulate of 115.' If the name of the statute is known, the charge is indexed under Procedures, both by the name of that statute (e.g., lex Cornelia de repetundis) and generically, according to the type of legislation (e.g., repetundae). Obviously, if the name of the statute is not known, then the charge is only indexed generically. I have used generic indexing even where we do know the name of the statute for the benefit of readers who wish to study a particular type of crime. I should add that, if I were to follow the view which I expressed in Alexander (1982) in its most extreme form, I would not have included, in the case of trials before quaestiones perpetuae, the substantive allegations, for I argued that they may not have been formally defined and thus would not be relevant to this work. Considering that my view is not necessarily applicable to all quaestiones, however, and considering that my view can hardly be described as a communis opinio, I have included under 'charge' the substantive allegations in this reference work, since they are generally thought to have been formally defined. In the case of iudicia populi, I have indicated that the trial took place before a iudicium populi, along with any other procedural fact of which we know, and then put the substantive allegations in parentheses. Thus, for example, 'charge: iudicium populi, for perduellio (treasonous dealings with Gauls)' should be understood to mean 'charge was laid against the defendant before a iudicium populi onperduellio,for having allegedly committed treasonous dealings with the Gauls.' For civil cases, I have described the claim first procedurally, and then substantively. Thus, for example, 'claim: actio furti (theft of vase)' should be understood to mean 'claim was laid against the defendant under the actio furti, for having allegedly stolen a vase.' For some trials, I include a category of 'other' to include material which pertains to the formal aspects of the trial, but which does not appear regularly enough to justify its own rubric. The work begins with trials in 149 BC and ends with trials in 50 BC. The reason for the latter date is fairly obvious; Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon, and the ensuing civil war, marked the end of normal functioning of Republican institutions, even if they had already begun to break down in the 50s. The beginning date of 149 BC is a somewhat less obvious choice. It is the year in which a lex Calpurnia established the first quaestio perpetua, or standing criminal court, an institution which expanded over the next seventy years, until it constituted the dominant element in Roman criminal jurisdiction. Admittedly, the date 149 has little importance for civil law, but since most of the trials
13 xiii Introduction listed here are criminal, it seemed appropriate to use this date as the beginning of the period which the book covers. The footnotes are designed to make the reader aware of any dubious or controversial points which relate to the formal aspects of the trial. In those instances where I have an original contribution to put forward, I have expressed it as concisely as possible, but normally I simply cite publications of other scholars (or occasionally my own) as the places to find discussion of these points, and summarize the views very briefly. I also cite publications which are relevant either to the trial as a whole or to aspects of it at the bottom of the listing for that trial. For the sake of brevity, however, I do not repeat there a citation to an article or book which I have already cited in the notes. Therefore, the reader should consider that both the citations in the notes and those at the bottom of the listing comprise the list of publications relevant to the formal aspects of these trials. The trials are listed in chronological order with trials of unknown or very indefinite date listed at the end. Cases #1 to #351 are listed chronologically; cases #352 to #391 are of indefinite date. Because of the Roman system of annual magistracies, it is usually possible to date a trial to a particular year. Since extortion trials figure quite prominently in this period, readers should be aware that they are often dated to the year after the defendant held provincial office. This is a reasonable surmise, but, if there is no other information dating the trial, not a known fact. It is often very difficult to date a trial to a particular day or month. Trials consisted of several stages, and some trials lasted longer than others. For example, the nominis delatio for trial A might occur before that of trial B, but the actual hearing of trial A might end after that of trial B; in this case, it would be difficult to say whether trial A preceded or followed trial B. One might suggest using one stage in each trial, say the nominis delatio, as the criterion by which the trials are to be chronologically ordered, but this procedure would not be practical, in view of the fact that for one trial we may know something about the date of one stage, and for another trial the date of another stage. Therefore, the order of trials is often based on limited evidence for dating, and should be viewed as giving merely a relative indication of the chronological order of trials within any given year. I have not included what I consider to be inherently speculative matter. By 'inherently speculative' I do not mean questions which are speculative because relevant facts which would have decided the questions no longer survive. Rather, I mean questions which would
14 xiv Introduction have been speculative even at the time of the trial, such as possible political forces behind a prosecution or the political consequences of a verdict, no matter how plausible or well-founded such speculation may be. Since I have excluded inherently speculative matters from the presentation of information about the trials, it makes sense not to cite modern publications which deal solely with those matters. I should therefore emphasize that this book does not attempt to cite all the bibliography on any given trial, but includes only those works which pertain to the formal and legal aspects of the trial. The exclusion of other works should not be seen as a reflection on their value, but as dictated by considerations of relevance. There is nonetheless one piece of information which is often a matter of speculation now, and probably was at the time of the trial, which I have included in this list under the 'other' category, and that is allegations of bribery. I did so for two reasons. First, such information is not inherently speculative, since it involves a question of fact, such as the sale of a juror's vote, even if such an act is usually hard to detect. Second, it does pertain to the legal aspects of the trial, for bribery could lead to hearings and judgments of praevaricatio or calumnia. Some readers will doubtless be surprised to see these trials divorced from the political context in which they are usually discussed. The reason is not that I reject out of hand any connection between law and politics, especially in view of the fact that in most of these trials the defendant and many other participants were politicians. Rather, I believe that in the absence of extant court records, such as the sort most scholars of legal history have at their disposal, Roman historians can profit from this distillation of what we actually know about each trial. This work serves as a basis for further research in legal or political history. In order to exclude any bias which our preconceptions might impart to the study of late Republican legal history, I have not highlighted or distinguished those trials which political histories of the Late Republic generally view as crucial. The use of '?' within the entries calls for comment. Because of the limits and gaps in our sources, there are many pieces of information in this volume which represent guesses, however educated and plausible these guesses may be. For these data, I have set a '?' immediately to the right of the relevant word, phrase, or number. In case #62, for example, the date 104, the charge and procedure, and the date of the prosecutor's tribunate, are all in question, and this uncertainty is indicated by question marks. Further information should be sought either in notes, when they accompany the particular piece of information, or,
15 xv Introduction especially in the case of prosopographical information, in standard reference works such as MRR or Sumner's Orators. I would like to make one other point about the purpose of this book. Its focus is on the trials of the period, not on the individuals who participated in them; in this respect, it is different from Magistrates of the Roman Republic, which obviously focuses on individual careers. Although I do record the highest magistracy acquired, in order to identify senators and help place them in terms of their careers, the book is not meant to be a prosopographical analysis of those individuals who happen to participate in trials. But a considerable amount of prosopographical information is included in the text and footnotes, and if there is doubt about a magistracy, I so indicate with a question mark in the text and/or footnote. In the case of a consulate, there is usually no doubt, and the entry is simple, e.g., 'M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63.' But especially when a senator reaches only a lower-level magistracy, there may be some dispute about what magistracy was held, or when it was held, or who held it. In many cases, this dispute is relevant to an aspect of the trial itself. For example, the identity of the praetor in case #173 is relevant to the date of the trial. In many other cases, however, the highest office held by an individual may have no bearing on the trial. For example, the date when T. Albucius was praetor has no bearing on when he prosecuted Q. Mucius Scaevola in case #32. Nevertheless, if there is a question about the highest office held by an individual, I provide at least minimal references to the prosopographical sources, so that the reader does not take as given what is in fact open to question. I hope that prosopographical information of this type will not distract the reader from the information which is relevant to the trials. There are several standard works which are so fundamental to this project that it would have been otiose to refer to them at each point where I have consulted them, or where the reader might want to consult them. These are the many prosopographical articles in the Real- Encyclopädie, especially those written by F. Münzer, and T.R.S. Broughton's Magistrates of the Roman Republic, a work which, as I have mentioned, served as a model and inspiration to me in writing this volume. Also to be mentioned in this regard are G.V. Sumner's The Orators in Cicero's Brutus: Prosopography and Chronology, Drumann/ Groebe's still useful Geschichte Roms, and, for equites Romani, the second volume of C. Nicolet's L'Ordre équestre à l'époque républicaine. Most of all, in spite of the apolitical nature of this work, my debt to the publications of Erich S. Gruen, especially to his two books Roman Politics
16 xvi Introduction and the Criminal Courts, B.C. and The Last Generation of the Roman Republic will be obvious to all scholars in the field. One additional point is that, in citations of articles from the Real-Encyclopädie, I cite the date of publication of the RE volume. This work does not attempt to cite all fragmenta of forensic orations. For those individuals who made forensic speeches, a citation is made, next to their name, either to Malcovati's Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta, or, for Cicero, to Crawford's M. Tullius Cicero, the Lost and Unpublished Orations; further consultation can be made to Schoell's or Puccioni's collections of Cicero's fragmenta. Although a version of this manuscript was originally submitted in the fall of 1984, I have had the opportunity to make several revisions. The current version incorporates all publications available to me as of June Unfortunately, it has not been possible for me to consult D.R. Shackleton Bailey's new Onomasticon. Readers will likely find errors and omissions in this book. As it is possible that I will be able to publish revisions at some point, I would be very grateful if suggestions for changes could be sent to me at the following address: Department of Classics, m/c 129 University of Illinois at Chicago P.O. Box 4348 Chicago, IL 60680
17 ABBREVIATIONS For Latin sources the OLD abbreviations have been used; for Greek sources the OCD (2nd ed.) abbreviations have been used. 'C stands for 'condemnation,' 'A' for 'acquittal,' 'NL' for 'non liquet,' 'nom. del.' for nominis delator and 'subscr.' for subscriptor. The following abbreviations have been used for modern works; complete bibliographic citations of these works, as well as of other works referred to in this book, can be found in the Works Cited. Badian, Studies Cichorius, Untersuch Crawford, Orations Crawford, RRC D.-G. Douglas, Brutus Frier, RRJ FTP Gabba, Appian Gabba, RR Gruen, LGRR Gruen, RPCC Magie, RRAM E. Badian, Studies in Greek and Roman History Lucil.C. Cichorius, Untersuchungen zu Lucilius J. Crawford, M. Tullius Cicero: The Lost and Unpublished Orations M.H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage Drumann Geschichte Roms 2, rev. Groebe Cicero, Brutus, ed. A.E. Douglas Bruce W. Frier, The Rise of the Roman Jurists: Studies in Cicero's pro Caecina Niccolini, I fasti dei tribuni della plebe Appian, Bellorum Civilium Liber Primus, ed. E. Gabba E. Gabba, Republican Rome, the Army, and the Allies E.S. Gruen, The Last Generation of the Roman Republic E.S. Gruen, Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts, B.C. D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor
18 xviii Abbreviations Marshall, Asconius Bruce A. Marshall, A Historical Commentary on Asconius Mommsen, StR. Th. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht Mommsen, Strafr. Th. Mommsen, Römisches Strafrecht MRR T. Robert S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic MRR Suppl. T. Robert S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, Vol. 3, Supplement Nicolet, Ordre équestre C. Nicolet, L 'Ordre équestreàl'époque républicaine ORF Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta liberae rei publicae 4, ed. H. Malcovati RE Paulys Real-Encyclopädiederclassischen Altertumswissenschaft RP R. Syme, Roman Papers Sch. R.G. Schettler, 'Cicero's Oratorical Career' (unpublished U. of Pennsylvania dissertation) 1961 Shackleton Bailey, CLA Cicero's Letters to Atticus, ed. D.R. Shackleton Bailey Shackleton Bailey, CLF Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares, ed. D.R. Shackleton Bailey Shackleton Bailey, CQF Cicero, Epistulae ad Quintum fratrem et M. Brutum, ed. D.R. Shackleton Bailey Shackleton Bailey, Studies D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Two Studies in Roman Nomenclature Sumner, Orators G.V. Sumner, The Orators in Cicero's Brutus: Prosopography and Chronology Wilkins, De Oratore Cicero, De oratore libri tres, ed. A.S. Wilkins
19 Trials in the Late Roman Republic
21 The Trials 1 date: charge: quaestio extraordinaria (proposed) 2 (misconduct as gov. Lusitania 150) defendant: Ser. Sulpicius Galba (58) cos. 144 spoke pro se (ORF 19.II, III) advocate: Q. Fulvius Nobilior (95) cos. 153, cens. 136 prosecutors:. L. Cornelius Cethegus (91) M. Porcius Cato (9) cos. 195, cens. 184 (ORF 8.LI) L. Scribonius Libo (18) tr. pl. 149 (promulgator) outcome: proposal defeated Cic. Div. Caec. 66; Mur. 59; de Orat. 1.40, ; 2.263; Brut. 80, 89; Att. 12.5b; Liv ; Per. 49; Per. Oxy. 49; Quint. Inst ; Plut. Cat. Mai. 15.5; Tac. Ann. 3.66; App. Hisp. 60; Fro. Aur. 1. p. 172 (56N); Gel , ; see also V. Max abs. 2; [Asc.]203St;Vir.Ill.47.7 Ferguson (1921); see also Buckland (1937); Richardson (1987) 2 n On the date see Cic. Att. 12.5b. 2 See Douglas, Brutus p date: 145 charge: iudicium populi, for perduellio 1 (failure as commander in Farther Spain)
22 4 The Trials defendant: C. Plautius (9) pr. 146 outcome: C, exile Diod. Sic. 33.2; see also Liv. Per. 52; App. Hisp So Bauman (1967) 22. However, the phrase used by Diodorus (epi tōi tetapeinōkenai tēn archēn) is a translation of maiestatem minuere. 3 date: uncertain 1 charge: iudicium populi defendant: C. Laelius Sapiens (3) cos. 140, spoke pro se (ORF 20.II) outcome: A? Fest , 210.5, L; see also Cic. Tusc Fraccaro (1912) argues that the fragments preserved are more likely to refer to the warfare of the defendant's praetorship (145) than to the tranquillity of his consulate. Therefore, a date of 144 would be likely. Note, however, that a comitial trial for extortion would be somewhat odd (though not impossible) when a quaestio for the crime had already been established. Perhaps, as Fraccaro notes, the trial pertained to his unsuccessful candidature in 142 for the consulate of 141. See Gruen, RPCC 56 n date: by 142 charge: uncertain (matricide) defendant: an unnamed female praetor: M. Popillius Laenas (22) pr. by 142, cos. 139 outcome: neither C nor A V. Max ambust. 1
23 5 The Trials 5 date: 141 charge: quaestio extraordinaria (money accepted as bribe when praetor, judging cases inter sicarios) 1 defendant: L. Hostilius Tubulus (26) pr. 142 outcome: self-exile before trial, suicide when recalled Cic. Att. 12.5b; Scaur. frag. k; Fin. 2.54, 4.77, 5.62; N.D = Lucil. 1312M, 3.74; Asc. 23C; Gel Mommsen, Strafr. 71 n. 1, 197 n. 2; 203 n. 1; 633 n. 4; Münzer (1912) ; (Hermes 1920) 427f.; Richardson (1987) 11 1 The charge was to be investigated by a quaestio extraordinaria under consul Cn. Servilius Caepio (46), according to a plebiscite passed by P. Mucius Scaevola (17) cos. 133 as tr. pl. 6 date: early 140 charge: iudicium populi (for irregularities in performing lustrum as cens. 142) defendant: P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (335) cos. 147, 134, cens. 142, spoke pro se (ORF 21.V) prosecutor: Ti. Claudius Asellus (63) tr. pl. outcome: almost certainly A other: Scipio delivered at least five orations against Claudius Asellus. Cic. de Orat ?; ; Gel ; 3.4.1; = Lucil. 394M, ; Fest L? Fraccaro (1912) ; Scullard (1960) 69; Astin (1967) 127, , See Astin (1967) 256 #22 on whether the interchange between Scipio and Asellus recorded in de Orat should be attributed to this trial, or to a recognitio equitum, in which Scipio as censor attempted to have Asellus deprived of his horse.
24 6 The Trials 7 date: 140 charge: lex (Calpurnia?) de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Macedonia) defendant: D. Iunius Silanus Manlianus (161) pr outcome: trial halted by investigation conducted by defendant's father, 2 who found his son guilty; suicide by son 3 Cic. Fin. 1.24; Liv. Per. 54; Per. Oxy. 54; V. Max Richardson (1987) 9, 11 1 Morgan (1974) argues that his praetorship and governorship must have occurred in 142 in order for the Macedonian envoys to have gathered evidence and appeared in Rome by early The defendant's father referred to here is his natural father, T. Manlius Torquatus (83) cos. 165, who had emancipated him. 3 The trial might have continued after the suicide (see lex Acilia line 29); if we can judge by this later law, a continuation of the trial would appear to be necessary if the injured parties were to receive monetary compensation. 8 date: 138? 1 charge: lex (Calpurnia?) de repetundis (misconduct as consul and proconsul in Hither Spain) 2 defendant: Q. Pompeius (12) cos. 141, cens. 131 (ORF 30.II) 3 witnesses: L. Caecilius Metellus Calvus (83) cos. 142 Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus (94) cos. 143, cens. 131 Cn. Servilius Caepio (46) cos. 141 Q. Servilius Caepio (48) cos. 140 outcome: A Cic. Font. 23, V. Max Cichorius, Untersuch. Lucil. 139 n. 1 1 Gruen, RPCC 37 n. 65 suggests a date of 139 on the basis of App. Hisp. 79. However, allowance must be made for Q. Servilius Caepio to return from Lusitania to Rome to testify, probably in 138. See Münzer RE 2 (1923) 1783,